PHILADELPHIA – Counsel for the family of a Walmart customer who alleged that police who responded to a reported shoplifting incident tackled her in the parking lot, causing her to hit her head on the pavement and suffer a traumatic brain injury, have ceased pursuing their case.
Shauna Patterson of Folsom first filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on Jan. 23 versus Walmart, Inc., Raymond Trent and Michael Slowik, all of Eddystone.
“On Nov. 19, 2021, Walmart was operating in Eddystone, PA. Defendant Trent was employed as a loss prevention officer for Walmart and defendant Slowik, was employed as a police officer at Eddystone Borough Police Department in Delaware County, Pennsylvania,” the suit said.
“On Nov. 19, 2021, plaintiff was inside of Walmart and had shoplifted shampoo. Defendants Trent and Slowik tackled her to the ground in the Walmart parking lot. Plaintiff’s head bounced off the asphalt ground surface. Defendant Slowik body-slammed plaintiff to the ground, and defendant Trent sat on top of plaintiff while she was actively seizing on the ground.”
The suit added that as a result of the force used against the plaintiff, she suffered a fractured skull, a traumatic brain injury, a brain bleed and a fractured clavicle.
“Plaintiff did not run from the defendants and did not resist arrest in any way. Plaintiff was found guilty of crimes related to the theft, all other charges were dismissed against plaintiff. Defendant Trent was not properly trained and supervised by Walmart. Defendants Trent and Slowik conspired to beat and harm plaintiff,” the suit stated.
Counsel for defendant Slowik answered the complaint on Feb. 8, denying Patterson’s allegations of excessive force, assault, battery and others against him and his co-defendants.
“Plaintiff was inside Walmart and shoplifted multiple items, including shampoo. It is specifically denied that plaintiff was tackled or that she was in the parking lot at the time of arrest. Rather, she resisted arrest inside of Walmart. Plaintiff was not tackled and was not in the parking lot nor did her head bounce off the asphalt ground surface. She was arrested inside of Walmart. It is specifically denied that plaintiff was body-slammed to the ground or that anyone sat on top of her or that she was ‘seizing.’ Strict proof is demanded. All claims of causation and claims of alleged injury by Officer Slowik are denied,” the answer stated, in part.
“Plaintiff did not run from Officer Slowik but had to be restrained in the aisle at Walmart as she refused to submit to the arrest. Plaintiff flailed her arms and elbows aggressively toward Officer Slowik and the Walmart Loss Prevention Officer and refused to put her hands behind her back. Her actions involved resisting arrest. Plaintiff pled guilty to retail theft in a negotiated plea in which the prosecutor agreed to dismiss the remaining charges. All averments of conspiracy are specifically denied as are all allegations that plaintiff was beaten. Strict proof is demanded.”
Counsel for Slowik further provided 15 affirmative defenses on their client’s behalf.
“The complaint fails to state any claim upon which relief may be granted. All claims against defendant Slowik are barred by application of the doctrine of qualified immunity as articulated in Harlow v. Fitzgerald, and subsequent decisions. At all relevant times during this action, the individual defendant’s acts were all done in good faith and pursuant to law and in no way violated any rights, process, protection, privileges or immunities to which plaintiff is entitled under the Constitution of the United States and the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania,” the defenses read, in part.
“Individual defendant asserts that he did not violate clearly established law, and at all times concerned, acted in a manner that was proper, reasonable and lawful and in the exercise of good faith and, as such, enjoys not only a right to qualified immunity but also a right not to be brought to trial as articulated in Mitchell v. Forsyth. Merely negligent or careless conduct on the part of defendant, if any such occurred, is insufficient to maintain a cause of action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. Section 1983. The alleged injuries or damages sustained by the plaintiff, if any, resulted solely from her own conduct in refusing to submit to arrest and/or were pre-existing or subsequently occurring conditions and not from any violation of her civil rights or by any willful conduct of the individual defendant.”
In an April 25 filing, Slowik’s counsel informed the Court that the plaintiff had recently passed away.
“Counsel for defendant Police Officer Michael Slowik, in the above-referenced matter, gives notice and suggests upon the record, pursuant to Rule 25 (a)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, that Shauna Patterson is deceased, having passed away on March 12, 2023. Plaintiff’s counsel advised the Court of his client’s death in a motion filed on April 3, 2023,” the filing stated.
That prior motion filed on April 3 explained Patterson’s death was due to an overdose, unrelated to the subject events at issue.
Counsel for Slowik filed a motion on July 26 for their client to be dismissed from the case with prejudice, in the wake of Patterson’s death. They cited Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 25, which states:
“If a party dies and the claim is not extinguished, the court may order substitution of the proper party. A motion for substitution may be made by any party or by the decedent’s successor or representative. If the motion is not made within 90 days after service of a statement noting the death, the action by or against the decedent must be dismissed.”
In defense counsel’s prerogative, such an estate substitution had not been made here.
“The genesis of the matter is an arrest of plaintiff by Officer Michael Slowik on Nov. 19, 2021. Following an answer with new matter by defendant Slowik on Feb. 8, 2023, the Court ordered a pre-trial conference to be held on April 5, 2023. On April 3, in advance of the conference, plaintiff’s counsel, Brian Zeiger, Esq., filed a motion to continue the Rule 16 conference advising the Court that the plaintiff, Shauna Patterson, reportedly overdosed and was deceased and that there was no Estate raised. The Court granted the motion to continue the conference. According to the docket, defendants Walmart, Inc. and Raymond Trent, have never been served,” per the dismissal motion.
“On April 25, 2023, counsel for defendant, Michael Slowik, filed a suggestion of death as to Shauna Patterson who passed away on March 12, 2023. There has been no estate substitution at the expiration of 90 days from the suggestion of death and the lawsuit should be dismissed.”
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania Judge Joel H. Slomsky decreed on Aug. 4 that if the Court was not made aware of the plaintiff’s survivors’ plans, the case would be thrown out.
“Upon consideration of the statements made by counsel during the on-the-record telephone conference held on this day, it is ordered that plaintiff’s family shall advise the Court within 14 days if they intend to raise an estate. Otherwise, the case will be dismissed with prejudice,” Slomsky said.
UPDATE
True to his word, Slomsky dismissed the action on Aug. 31, as no contact from the plaintiff’s family had been made to the Court.
“Upon consideration of the Court’s order dated Aug. 4, 2023 and having received no notice that plaintiff’s family intends to raise an estate, it is ordered that the above-captioned case is dismissed. It is further ordered that the Clerk of Court shall close the case for statistical purposes,” Slomsky said.
The plaintiff was represented by Brian J. Zeiger of Levin & Zeiger, in Philadelphia.
Defendant Slowik was represented by Suzanne McDonough of Holsten & Associates, in Media.
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania case 2:23-cv-00272
From the Pennsylvania Record: Reach Courts Reporter Nicholas Malfitano at nick.malfitano@therecordinc.com